James Purnell: In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on 11 July, the Prime Minister said that during the summer we would look at whether regeneration may be a better way of meeting economic and social needs than the creation of regional casinos. I know that there is a great deal of interest in this issue across both Houses and beyond, and I am making this statement to provide further detail to enable those directly involved to plan accordingly.
	The Gambling Act 2005 provides for the licensing of one regional, eight large and eight small casinos. The Government's national policy statement on casinos published in December 2004 sought to accommodate the desire expressed by many local authorities to explore the potential economic and regenerative benefits of new casino developments within our overriding objective of keeping crime out of gambling, keeping it fair and protecting children and vulnerable people.
	In October 2005, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics and London, the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), established the independent casino advisory panel to advise her on the authorities that should be given the power to issue the new casino licences. Some 68 local authorities applied to panel, including 27 applications for the single regional casino. On 30 January, the panel recommended that Manchester should be permitted to issue the regional casino premises licence, and it recommended the 16 authorities that should be permitted to issue large and small casino licences.
	Having carefully considered the independent panel's report, and following consultation with colleagues in the devolved administrations, on 28 March the Government brought before the House an order giving effect to the recommendations. That order was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of 24. It was, however, narrowly rejected by the House of Lords.
	The Government have reflected on the debates in both Houses. There are a number of important conclusions to be drawn.
	The first is that there was a clear consensus across all parties that the eight large and eight small casinos—the "sixteen"—should be awarded to the authorities identified by the casino advisory panel.
	Since Parliament debated this issue, there have been local elections in many of the areas concerned. Some have experienced a change of political control, and in the remaining authorities some of the individual councillors involved in relevant decisions may have changed.
	Our reform of gambling policy has placed a great emphasis on the importance of local consultation and local accountability; we have given local people through their elected representatives a greater say in the licensing of gambling premises in their communities. This includes for the first time giving authorities the power to resolve not to license a new casino.
	Against this backdrop, I have decided to write to the authorities concerned to ask them to confirm their continued desire to license a new casino. I am sure that both Houses will wish to take account of a renewed commitment from the areas concerned when the time comes to consider this matter again. If any of the authorities have had a change of heart, I will not include them in the new legislation. The Gambling Act requires only that up to eight authorities in each category are identified.
	While there may have been broad agreement on the 16, it was equally clear that—as the Prime Minister made plain last week—there is no such consensus over the regional casino. While much of the debate focused on the merits of the casino advisory panel's recommendation of Manchester as compared to Blackpool, many Members on all sides of both Houses expressed serious doubts about whether we should have a regional casino at all. We have taken heed of those concerns.
	The Gambling Act, which is due to come into force on 1 September this year, introduces one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes anywhere in the world. And it is why we enshrined at the heart of that legislation the three key objectives of keeping crime out of gambling, keeping it fair for the consumer and—our number one priority—protecting children and vulnerable people.
	Later in the year, the independent Gambling Commission will publish a new study into the prevalence of gambling. This will provide updated information about the rate of gambling and problem gambling in this country. The gambling industry is on notice that if, despite the very stringent safeguards we have introduced, the incidence of problem gambling increases, we have taken the powers to introduce even tougher protections. I have also decided that it is right to pause, to wait for the results of the prevalence study to be published in September, before reaching a decision on how best to respond to the decision of the House of Lords to defeat the casino areas order.
	The Government's overriding priority have always been to minimise the potential for harm arising from such developments. At the same time, we have wanted to respond positively to the significant number of local authorities who have been keen to explore the potential of a regional casino to contribute to regeneration in their communities. That is why the new casino provisions were introduced in the first place. And it was the need for regeneration in East Manchester that was a significant factor in that city's success in its application to the casino advisory panel.
	In view of the very real concern surrounding the regional casino, it would be prudent to examine afresh whether deprived areas can be equally well served by other forms of regeneration. The Government are taking forward this issue.
	In the meantime, we are proceeding with the urgent task of completing the implementation of the Gambling Act. Protecting children and consumers is our number one priority. I will ensure that our new system of regulation, as it covers every aspect of casinos and other gambling premises—from advertising to checks on entry to controls on games and machines—will place public protection first.

Phil Woolas: On 27 November 2006, Official Report, column 80WS, my hon. Friend, the Minister for Science and Innovation, the Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson) announced the start of a review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP). Today, I am publishing the report of this review.
	The review was part of a Government recommendation that public bodies are subjected to periodic study to ensure that they are still delivering high quality services and are adequately resourced. It was carried out by independent consultants, on behalf of DEFRA, who gathered evidence from individuals and organisations with an interest in the work of the RCEP.
	The report focused on the quality and impact of RCEP studies, its working methods, management and level of resources. It concluded that there is a continuing need for the functions of the RCEP and put forward a number of options for its modernisation.
	The report does not constitute our policy position. DEFRA will now examine the options proposed in the report in more detail and explore their financial and organisational implications. DEFRA will consult with other Government Departments, the devolved administrations and the RCEP to formulate a Government response later in the year.
	Copies of the full report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy can also be accessed on the DEFRA website.